Literature DB >> 12162482

Visual acuity and the accuracy of the accommodative response.

Manoj V Subbaram1, Mark A Bullimore.   

Abstract

Previous investigators have observed that some subjects show large amounts of accommodative lag. We hypothesized that less accurate accommodation might be associated with poorer visual acuity and/or smaller pupil sizes. Sixty subjects (30 emmetropes and 30 myopes) aged 20-30 years, participated. All had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/6 or better [mean = -0.10 +/- 0.07 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)]. Subjects monocularly viewed reduced Bailey-Lovie charts through a +6.50 D Badal lens on a Canon R1 auto-refractor. Visual acuity, accommodative response and pupil diameter were measured for 0, 2 and 4 D accommodative stimuli. For accommodation measurements (N= 10) subjects were instructed to fixate the smallest letters that they could read. The mean accommodative response was +0.22 +/- 0.28, +1.83 +/- 0.23 and +3.71 +/- 0.27 D for the 0, 2 and 4 D stimuli, respectively. The mean visual acuity was -0.06 +/- 0.10, -0.11 +/- 0.07 and -0.11 +/- 0.07 logMAR for the 0, 2 and 4 D stimuli, respectively. Visual acuity for the 0 D stimulus was significantly poorer than for other conditions (p < 0.001) and associated with increased accommodative lead (p < 0.01). There was also an association between visual acuity and accommodative response (or lag) for the 4 D stimulus (p=0.002). The emmetropes showed significantly better visual acuity than the myopes (p= 0.004). No significant difference was observed in the accommodative response between emmetropes and myopes. Pupil diameter was not associated with the accuracy of the accommodative response (p > 0.17). Increased accommodative lead (0 D stimulus) and accommodative lag (4 D stimulus) are associated with decreased visual acuity. Smaller pupil diameters are not associated with increased accommodative lag.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12162482     DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00037.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  11 in total

1.  Electrophysiological study of myopia.

Authors:  Mona Abdel Kader
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-08-16

2.  Individual variations in human cone photoreceptor packing density: variations with refractive error.

Authors:  Toco Yuen Ping Chui; Hongxin Song; Stephen A Burns
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Retinal image quality during accommodation.

Authors:  Norberto López-Gil; Jesson Martin; Tao Liu; Arthur Bradley; David Díaz-Muñoz; Larry N Thibos
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Is visual resolution after adaptive optics correction susceptible to perceptual learning?

Authors:  Ethan A Rossi; Austin Roorda
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 2.004

5.  Accommodative responses under various viewing conditions in surgical patients with intermittent exotropia: an institutional, retrospective study.

Authors:  Ziyi Qi; Linlin Du; Jun Chen; Xun Xu; Xiangui He; Jun Qiang
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.086

6.  Biometry of anterior segment of human eye on both horizontal and vertical meridians during accommodation imaged with extended scan depth optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  Lin Leng; Yimin Yuan; Qi Chen; Meixiao Shen; Qingkai Ma; Beibei Lin; Dexi Zhu; Jia Qu; Fan Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Efficacy of Chinese eye exercises on reducing accommodative lag in school-aged children: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Shi-Ming Li; Meng-Tian Kang; Xiao-Xia Peng; Si-Yuan Li; Yang Wang; Lei Li; Jing Yu; Li-Xin Qiu; Yun-Yun Sun; Luo-Ru Liu; He Li; Xin Sun; Michel Millodot; Ningli Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Lags and leads of accommodation in humans: Fact or fiction?

Authors:  Vivek Labhishetty; Steven A Cholewiak; Austin Roorda; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Ali Mazyed Alsaqr; Hisham AlShareef; Faisal Alhajri; Ali Abusharha; Raied Fagehi; Ahmad Alharbi; Saud Alanazi
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-09

10.  Reliability of standard pupillometry practice in neurocritical care: an observational, double-blinded study.

Authors:  David Couret; Delphine Boumaza; Coline Grisotto; Thibaut Triglia; Lionel Pellegrini; Philippe Ocquidant; Nicolas J Bruder; Lionel J Velly
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2016-03-13       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.